Ah ha! So you say that to stop gunships chain sexploding, spread them out - well as was said, if you spread them out, they're not useful.
See? This shit is balanced!
CAYDR
Do you hear me?
GROUND AND AIR ARE BALLLANNCEEED!
Absolute Annihilation 2.11
Moderator: Moderators
Ugh, what a long day...
Purpose of lower airplant cost is to allow units to be transported easily across very large distances without excessive cost, making maps over 20x20 less tedious when attacking by ground.
L1 fighters are already, as has been stated by many, the best anti-air units you can have cost versus effectiveness, for the vast majority of the game. They're also quite good for harassment and scouting. Basically they do everything but kill something specifically designed to fight them off. Bork bork bork.
So, a cost increase seemed reasonable. The metal cost is something like 10 or 20 percent higher. Nah probably not 20. 15? who knows. What it amounts to though, is about 8 or 9 more metal per fighter. From 50 to 58 metal. You can afford it. So what is that, 18% higher? Screw it. I know nothing.
I misread or misinterpreted earlier posts talking about flares needing to be changed. So peepers/finks have been reverted and radar planes have been given the increase that was asked for (to 1.5) as well as a slight decrease to their efficiency (instead of 9/10 missiles being jammed, only 4/5 will be jammed. Don't ask, don't argue, don't mention it. Just leave it. I'm too tired and if you do, I'll remove flares entirely except from krows, which will launch every 0.1 second with 100% efficiency, just to spite you. I'm too damn tired for the pissing and moaning.)
Earlier today, before I went to work for 12 hours in order to support myself since the donations have slowed to a trickle ($15 in the last 8 years kthx), I finished some more work on AA. Did all the necessary scripting changes, including making flashes and instigators aim faster, although flashes now have the upper hand in this area. But they're the same type of unit so they should both have pretty good aiming, not like a bulldog or something like they were before.
I've also organized everything that's left into "horribly painful" and "not as painful" categories. I'll be doing the latter and hoping for a visit from the espresso fairy before I can consider tackling the other.
I'll try to work up a working changelog tomorrow or something, unless I get roped back into work again.
Purpose of lower airplant cost is to allow units to be transported easily across very large distances without excessive cost, making maps over 20x20 less tedious when attacking by ground.
L1 fighters are already, as has been stated by many, the best anti-air units you can have cost versus effectiveness, for the vast majority of the game. They're also quite good for harassment and scouting. Basically they do everything but kill something specifically designed to fight them off. Bork bork bork.
So, a cost increase seemed reasonable. The metal cost is something like 10 or 20 percent higher. Nah probably not 20. 15? who knows. What it amounts to though, is about 8 or 9 more metal per fighter. From 50 to 58 metal. You can afford it. So what is that, 18% higher? Screw it. I know nothing.
I misread or misinterpreted earlier posts talking about flares needing to be changed. So peepers/finks have been reverted and radar planes have been given the increase that was asked for (to 1.5) as well as a slight decrease to their efficiency (instead of 9/10 missiles being jammed, only 4/5 will be jammed. Don't ask, don't argue, don't mention it. Just leave it. I'm too tired and if you do, I'll remove flares entirely except from krows, which will launch every 0.1 second with 100% efficiency, just to spite you. I'm too damn tired for the pissing and moaning.)
Earlier today, before I went to work for 12 hours in order to support myself since the donations have slowed to a trickle ($15 in the last 8 years kthx), I finished some more work on AA. Did all the necessary scripting changes, including making flashes and instigators aim faster, although flashes now have the upper hand in this area. But they're the same type of unit so they should both have pretty good aiming, not like a bulldog or something like they were before.
I've also organized everything that's left into "horribly painful" and "not as painful" categories. I'll be doing the latter and hoping for a visit from the espresso fairy before I can consider tackling the other.
I'll try to work up a working changelog tomorrow or something, unless I get roped back into work again.
thank god for reverting peepers and finks back
<3.
But caydr - the best way to increase airdrop is to make atlas cheaper/hardier instead of giving blanket air plant cost drop. Changing full airplant cost will totally chage game balance in ways that you dont want to see
An atlas now costs as much as the L1 unit it will transport.
Alternatively, you could make a multi-unit trnasport with quickdrop if you really want airdrops to be effective...
<3.
But caydr - the best way to increase airdrop is to make atlas cheaper/hardier instead of giving blanket air plant cost drop. Changing full airplant cost will totally chage game balance in ways that you dont want to see
An atlas now costs as much as the L1 unit it will transport.
Alternatively, you could make a multi-unit trnasport with quickdrop if you really want airdrops to be effective...
Except the big problem there isn't the cost of the air plant - you can usually afford one of those with a bit of budgeting even in a very close 1v1. (I speak from experience here, having used them to turn a couple tight games around) On a 20x20, you should be able to afford them out of pocket change. The big problem there is the cost, opportunity cost, and relative fragility of the transports. Because they're so weak and you lose the unit if they go down, and you still have to contend with the enemy's ground forces once you're on the ground, you're better off building bombers/gunships and using those to attack.Caydr wrote:Purpose of lower airplant cost is to allow units to be transported easily across very large distances without excessive cost, making maps over 20x20 less tedious when attacking by ground.
I'm not sure what a good solution is. Make them too tough or too cheap, and you risk making defending against airdrops impossible or, worse, turning transports into "missile decoys" for air assaults. Make it so the dropped unit survives (if that's even possible) and suddenly you've created the perfect comm-rush weapon, and a good bomber once you get crawling bombs.
What do people think of this suggestion? Drop their costs - they're currently about equal in metal cost and buildtime to a Banshee but cheaper in energy, and they're unarmed and can only carry one unit. Buff their sight range. Give them a slight acceleration and turn rate buff. (Maybe up to about that of an L1 bomber or a bit more) That way, they can't survive to make drops into zones defended by AA, but can be used to rush your ground forces across the map to conventionally assault your enemy's base (possibly from an unexpected direction) while spotting and avoiding any AA en route. And they can maneuver to load faster.
Also, I wouldn't be worried about L1 fighters if you drop the air plant costs. I'd be more worried about bombers and gunships. Especially Bladewings. With a reduced air plant cost, I'd think every Core player would spam the bloody things even more than they already do.
Aren't they pretty horrible for harassment and scouting? IIRC, MTs basically one-shot them, so even cursory AA will stop them from scouting, and they aren't wonderful at ground assault. They're also very vulnerable to enemy AA in general.L1 fighters are already, as has been stated by many, the best anti-air units you can have cost versus effectiveness, for the vast majority of the game. They're also quite good for harassment and scouting. Basically they do everything but kill something specifically designed to fight them off. Bork bork bork.
That sounds perfect. :)I misread or misinterpreted earlier posts talking about flares needing to be changed. So peepers/finks have been reverted and radar planes have been given the increase that was asked for (to 1.5) as well as a slight decrease to their efficiency
Have you considered taking on some script/stat-monkey helpers to throw some of the work at?
Being a Core players, I just want to say...Caydr wrote:I misread or misinterpreted earlier posts talking about flares needing to be changed. So peepers/finks have been reverted and radar planes have been given the increase that was asked for (to 1.5) as well as a slight decrease to their efficiency (instead of 9/10 missiles being jammed, only 4/5 will be jammed. Don't ask, don't argue, don't mention it. Just leave it. I'm too tired and if you do, I'll remove flares entirely except from krows, which will launch every 0.1 second with 100% efficiency, just to spite you. I'm too damn tired for the pissing and moaning.)
OMFG FLARE EFFICIENCY OMGZ YOU NOOBZORSS I HATE YOU MOAN RANT MOAN MOAN RAHH
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
I would prefer simply a faster buildtime on air transports as opposed to any other buff. I find I am usually building an air plant early on for scouting/reclaiming, but I rarely bother attempting to air drop because of the time involved getting enough transports to carry a reasonable sized force. As far as flares on the transports, I've never played a 1v1 where Mercuries/Screamers were the main thing stopping me from attempting an air drop.
Ps Donated 5 bux
Ps Donated 5 bux
Zagupi wrote: And that would be bad! (We care about you! ,even thou it may seem like everybody just wants you to make AA like they want it to be.
<3 <3 <3 )
Dont exhuast yourself making dumb new changes. Yeah! AA is fine as is.
Except for ^$#$ sea >_>
And i shall have to agree with my fellow Goat here and say that even a simple buildtime reduction would be a huge plus to airdrops.
Buildtime and moderate cost reduction was the first thing I changed of course. I guess the video didn't really demonstrate that... anyway you CAN see that they're quite a lot more maneuverable now.
The point of their flares is to allow them to dodge a single volley of anti-air if they should accidentally fly through an area that the airdropping player didn't know was covered.
Air transports have, I think, enough HP to survive 3 missile hits. This means that defenders, as usual, just won't cut it for very long because of their reload time. However, packos and chainsaws (+equivalents) will tear them to shreds. One chainsaw can cover an entire base and make it airdrop-proof for the most part.
The point of their flares is to allow them to dodge a single volley of anti-air if they should accidentally fly through an area that the airdropping player didn't know was covered.
Air transports have, I think, enough HP to survive 3 missile hits. This means that defenders, as usual, just won't cut it for very long because of their reload time. However, packos and chainsaws (+equivalents) will tear them to shreds. One chainsaw can cover an entire base and make it airdrop-proof for the most part.
That sounds reasonable. Just... Kill the air plant cost reduction and fighter cost increase. Please. Air plants are already viable, it was just the transport costs that were out of whack.
Hm. Actually, this might be fun as another "surprise air" strategy in tight games. Will he go bombers? Gunships? Or will he just airlift five Instigators into my base and FLOUR my econ? Might encourage people to start in on the AA earlier, with so many ways to use air to screw you over.
Hm. Actually, this might be fun as another "surprise air" strategy in tight games. Will he go bombers? Gunships? Or will he just airlift five Instigators into my base and FLOUR my econ? Might encourage people to start in on the AA earlier, with so many ways to use air to screw you over.
Also, another oddity I just noticed:
ARMWAR Warrior Medium Infantry Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 39
Range: 330
Hitpoints: 1475
Cost: 208 Metal 5944 Energy
---WEAPONS---
ARMWAR_LASER DPS: 123 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 0.3
DPS: 123
DPS Per Cost: 8.62311
Hitpoints Per Cost: 10.3407
Estimated Overall value: 373.187
ARMZEUS Zeus Assault Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 41.4
Range: 280
Hitpoints: 1850
Cost: 329 Metal 5668 Energy
---WEAPONS---
LIGHTNING DPS: 108.897 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 1.7
DPS: 108.897
DPS Per Cost: 5.78378
Hitpoints Per Cost: 9.82579
Estimated Overall value: 248.932
The Warrior has better DPS/cost and HP/cost than the Zeus, better range, and only slightly worse HP and speed. While not many people use them, I think they might be a pretty sick assault unit now, and might be a nasty L1.5 surprise if you can afford to spare a few con bots to assist-build them.
In contrast, these numbers make it immediately obvious why the Maverick is not a viable assault unit:
ARMMAV Maverick Heavy Offensive Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 54
Range: 365
Hitpoints: 1300
Cost: 655 Metal 12180 Energy
---WEAPONS---
Armmav_weapon DPS: 246.296 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 0.945
DPS: 246.296
DPS Per Cost: 6.41731
Hitpoints Per Cost: 3.38718
Estimated Overall value: 404.329
Actually, looking at these numbers, the Warrior has better DPS/cost than the Mav and better HP/cost than the Zeus. The speed blows, but... Uh... Anyone want to see if that turns out as omgwtfpwn in-game as it sounds on paper?
ARMWAR Warrior Medium Infantry Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 39
Range: 330
Hitpoints: 1475
Cost: 208 Metal 5944 Energy
---WEAPONS---
ARMWAR_LASER DPS: 123 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 0.3
DPS: 123
DPS Per Cost: 8.62311
Hitpoints Per Cost: 10.3407
Estimated Overall value: 373.187
ARMZEUS Zeus Assault Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 41.4
Range: 280
Hitpoints: 1850
Cost: 329 Metal 5668 Energy
---WEAPONS---
LIGHTNING DPS: 108.897 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 1.7
DPS: 108.897
DPS Per Cost: 5.78378
Hitpoints Per Cost: 9.82579
Estimated Overall value: 248.932
The Warrior has better DPS/cost and HP/cost than the Zeus, better range, and only slightly worse HP and speed. While not many people use them, I think they might be a pretty sick assault unit now, and might be a nasty L1.5 surprise if you can afford to spare a few con bots to assist-build them.
In contrast, these numbers make it immediately obvious why the Maverick is not a viable assault unit:
ARMMAV Maverick Heavy Offensive Kbot
Type: 3
--
Speed: 54
Range: 365
Hitpoints: 1300
Cost: 655 Metal 12180 Energy
---WEAPONS---
Armmav_weapon DPS: 246.296 AOE: 4 ReloadTime 0.945
DPS: 246.296
DPS Per Cost: 6.41731
Hitpoints Per Cost: 3.38718
Estimated Overall value: 404.329
Actually, looking at these numbers, the Warrior has better DPS/cost than the Mav and better HP/cost than the Zeus. The speed blows, but... Uh... Anyone want to see if that turns out as omgwtfpwn in-game as it sounds on paper?
I spotted that when surfing numbers to confirm impressions when updating the Fluffy Unit Guide. Definitely something odd there. It might not be an issue, due to the abysmal speed of the Warriors, but it's worth testing. Most people don't build them because the buildtime hurts in an L1 plant and they used to suck. But with con assist...NOiZE wrote:Yah!
Finialy the discussion is being promoted to discussing numbers!
Great find Egarwaen!
-
Machiosabre
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56